I noticed that 333 Grand (at the corner of Jersey) was being occupied, but didn't the city issue a judgement that they needed to take 2 stories off the building because they didn't follow the approved drawings submitted to DOB?

no, it is closer to 15-20% of the state average which makes sense for our demographics, special needs and ESL. With the current budget it will drop to around $21,886, less than 10% over average. our budget and cost per pupil only grew under state control.

Monroe wrote:JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Monroe wrote:JC schools spend 25% more per student than the state average so calling them ‘starved for cash’ is misleading g, especially since JC funds such a tiny amount of the cost.

Bingo! The problem is an administrative one. I kinda wish the State would take back full control of JC schools until costs are under control.

25% more per student than state average is ridiculous, especially when you consider the level of service being provided... It's not as if our schools are 25% better than the state average.

The one way to force the issue is for the state to stop sending a ridiculous amount of money to JCBOE at the expenses of other school needs in the rest of the state. That would force JC schools to get their budget in order.

Mostly agree, but! At present the city gets (at the expense of the schools and county) more money from most, but not all abatements than if a project was taxed conventionally. But with two caveats, the amounts are fixed or adjusted by contract whereas ratables will generate more tax dollars as the rate is increased AND some abatements actually do pay less, ie. 1 Journal Squared which pays $1200-$1500/yr per apartment.

In the short term, a dollar is a dollar, but as time goes on "rateables" are more valuable because they are "rateables." Abatements distort our local finances and allowed our city budget to balloon while claiming taxes are flat (the rate but not the amount) and our schools are starved (and feeling it.) The payroll tax will help, but will not fully replace the monies that our city "stole" from our schools.

Oh, and I absolutely do not believe that we should be trying raise tax dollars by taking people's residences via eminent domain. We have numerous examples of redevelopment plans that have taken decades to be built (partially built), Liberty Harbor, Colgate, Whitock Cordage, Hotel on the Square etc.

Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:Quote:

HeightsNative wrote:Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:Quote:

Yvonne wrote:If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

Yes, abatements don't get shared with the county (except for a paltry 5%) but the city still contributes to the school budget! The school does not rely on just direct taxation and contributions by the state and federal governments. The city government also sends a chunk of money to the BOE.

The part that drives me nuts about Yvonne's selective presentation of information is that she conveniently leaves out that the city collects MORE money through the abatements than it would under regular taxation. That larger amount translates to lower taxes. Ultimately, the budget is essentially a fixed amount (call it X) and it is made up of several sources of revenue, mostly taxes, PILOTs (abatement payments) and things like fines and fees. If the PILOTs were to go down, then the revenue has to be made up elsewhere, and since you can't force fees and fines high enough, fast enough, the only viable solution is to increase revenue from taxation. That means taxes would have to go up to make up the decrease from revenue generated through abatements, and go up by a larger overall amount than the one paid through the PILOT to make up the effective difference.

135jc wrote:Brewster, I am aware of the so called equalization rate. I almost included in my postbut figured it was common knowledge.

Ok, when you said "The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value." you gave the impression you thought they were paying their "fraction" assessed value but new was paying full FMV.

I don't know how abatement could be used to equalize property tax, they should only be used as they were intended to promote development of "blighted" areas. That they became expected by any developer is the problem, along with the developers greasing the pols to make it happen.

135jc wrote: The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

You show a common misunderstanding about how this system works. Not that it's critical to this discussion, but I've made eliminating ignorance of this system a mission, to counter Yvonne's lies, smoke, and mirrors.

Older properties had a low assessment relative to FMV, but this was compensated for by the Equalization Rate, in 2017 23.66. What this meant was the assessments of the city as a whole were 23.66% of the FMV. When new (or gutted) ratable properties are assessed, they take 23.66% of FMV and make that it's new assessment, to keep it in line with the rest of the city as it would be taxed at the official rate (in 2017 7.8%).

Where the unfairness came from was some areas of the city appreciated faster or slower than others over 30 years, meaning they were outliers of that average represented by the Equalization Rate. This is how Downtown brownstones were paying 0.8% and Greenville hovels 4%. So a new JC ratable property would have been at 1.826% last year, higher than the older DT properties, but lower than most of the rest of the city, which were subsidizing the low taxed Downtowners. Got it?

Gotta love how Yvonne can't answer numbers with numbers, she just says she bothers tax officials, and then doesn't understand what they tell her.

Brewster, I am aware of the so called equalization rate. I almost included in my postbut figured it was common knowledge. As you pointed out it was not fair. As with other parts of the city even within downtown it was unbalanced between existing and new construction. To be fair as downtown prices adjust to the new tax rate there should be a new reval preformed. That probably wont happen so for a while areas outside of downtown will get the break. To my point abatements should not be used as property tax equalization

135jc wrote: The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

You show a common misunderstanding about how this system works. Not that it's critical to this discussion, but I've made eliminating ignorance of this system a mission, to counter Yvonne's lies, smoke, and mirrors.

Older properties had a low assessment relative to FMV, but this was compensated for by the Equalization Rate, in 2017 23.66. What this meant was the assessments of the city as a whole were 23.66% of the FMV. When new (or gutted) ratable properties are assessed, they take 23.66% of FMV and make that it's new assessment, to keep it in line with the rest of the city as it would be taxed at the official rate (in 2017 7.8%).

Where the unfairness came from was some areas of the city appreciated faster or slower than others over 30 years, meaning they were outliers of that average represented by the Equalization Rate. This is how Downtown brownstones were paying 0.8% and Greenville hovels 4%. So a new JC ratable property would have been at 1.826% last year, higher than the older DT properties, but lower than most of the rest of the city, which were subsidizing the low taxed Downtowners. Got it?

You will see that PILOTs account for a full 35% (a little higher, actually) of the taxation revenue (~128MM out of 350MM).

In order to replace that much revenue, you would need to have 16 BILLION worth of real estate property, paying the new rate of 1.62%. Remember that the city only gets to keep about half of that rate (with 25% going to the county and 25% going to the schools) which is why 16 BLLION would only generate 128 MM in taxes. Explain to me how we are going to replace 128 MM worth of revenue by adding a paltry 3 Billion dollars worth of real estate??

Can anyone refute this point?

The city would have a budget defect if all abated properties were taxed at the normal rate, rather than receiving the PILOT payments.

bodhipooh math looks correct. If not, please point out where it is flawed.

The county and school board would have access to the additional ratables and that should push down the tax rates for both (or allow them to spend more, the more likely outcome).

Yvonne wrote:If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.

This argument against abatements is forgetting one major point. The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

I believe this is true. There was that once case downtown where the developer asked the city to rescind the abatement it received because it would pay less under normal taxation.

Two issues -- At 333 Grand, the developer changed the exterior materials from one that was approved to one that was specifically excluded. (When using that excluded materials, the VVP neighborhood was covered in blown materials. After many complaints, the contractors sent around workers with Shop Vacs.) They are subject to millions in fines and remediation.

You will see that PILOTs account for a full 35% (a little higher, actually) of the taxation revenue (~128MM out of 350MM).

In order to replace that much revenue, you would need to have 16 BILLION worth of real estate property, paying the new rate of 1.62%. Remember that the city only gets to keep about half of that rate (with 25% going to the county and 25% going to the schools) which is why 16 BLLION would only generate 128 MM in taxes. Explain to me how we are going to replace 128 MM worth of revenue by adding a paltry 3 Billion dollars worth of real estate??

Yvonne wrote:If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

No abatement for 99 Hudson. And I agree with you that there really should only be 5 year abatement going forward for downtown. Other areas of the city still need a little help, but not 30 years.

This argument against abatements is forgetting one major point. The tax rate was was too high for new construction. The rest of the city had been paying on an assessment that was a fraction of actual value. Now that the reval has been done those differences do not exist. Going foward the abatments should be very limited.

Yvonne wrote:bodhipooh, bodhipooh, bodhipooh, Collecting more money still put JC in the hole compared to towns that do not give out tax abatements. Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand.

Goodness, woman. You are SO USED to your own lies, that repeating them must come easy. Adding the existing abated properties to the regular ratables will not lead to lower taxes! That's a TOTAL LIE. Those properties are paying taxes in the form of PILOTs, and the city gets to keep 95% of those funds. If you could wave a magic stick and overnight convert every abatement to a ratable, you would have a HUGE budget hole. How would that hole get plugged??

Yvonne wrote:Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand.

You keep repeating this kind of nonsense, utterly ignoring the lost PILOT revenue aspect. The rate would NOT go down like that since it would have to make up for the lost PILOTS, revenue you pretend does not exist.

bodhipooh, bodhipooh, bodhipooh, Collecting more money still put JC in the hole compared to towns that do not give out tax abatements. Before reval, the ratable base was 6 billion, about $2.4 to $2.8 billion is missing know as tax abatements. If they were added the ratable base would be nearly $9 billion and the tax rate would probably drop down to $55.00 per thousand instead of the $78.00 per thousand. I am rounding off. Prior to 1990, the city could not give tax abatements unless it was affordable. It is the reason Dixon Mills, the first 4 buildings in Newport and Society Hills were built without tax abatements. Newport later got added affordable housing and put adds in New York Post for NY renters. That happened when Cucci was mayor. If you want to protect the taxpayers, do development but stop the tax abatements. I will give Mayor/State Senator Stack credit, he will not do tax abatements. The only abatements in Union City exist prior to his becoming mayor. He does not believe in them for the same reason, I have stated.

Yvonne wrote:If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

Yes, abatements don't get shared with the county (except for a paltry 5%) but the city still contributes to the school budget! The school does not rely on just direct taxation and contributions by the state and federal governments. The city government also sends a chunk of money to the BOE.

The part that drives me nuts about Yvonne's selective presentation of information is that she conveniently leaves out that the city collects MORE money through the abatements than it would under regular taxation. That larger amount translates to lower taxes. Ultimately, the budget is essentially a fixed amount (call it X) and it is made up of several sources of revenue, mostly taxes, PILOTs (abatement payments) and things like fines and fees. If the PILOTs were to go down, then the revenue has to be made up elsewhere, and since you can't force fees and fines high enough, fast enough, the only viable solution is to increase revenue from taxation. That means taxes would have to go up to make up the decrease from revenue generated through abatements, and go up by a larger overall amount than the one paid through the PILOT to make up the effective difference.

K-Lo2 wrote:This item has been moved to the July 24 Planning Board. Tonight's big item is the Mocco projects, built way beyond permitted plans using materials strictly forbidden. Should be fun.

Now THIS is something that people SHOULD be vigilant about, and insist that the city hold the developer accountable. Enforcing approved plans, and ensuring that suitable materials are used, should be a major concern of the city's buildings department and inspectors.

Yvonne wrote:If property is tax abated, it does not help, that is a contract and the city spends that money as fast as it receives. If it is not tax abatement then it is a ratable, which stabilizes the tax base and the county, schools will get their fair share.

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about, but that has already been established! Ratable or abatement, it is still money to the city. Whatever money the city gets from an abatement, it represents actual "income" which means the city needs to raise less money via regular taxation.

And, of course, there is that little pesky fact you choose to ignore: the abatement payments actually add more money to the city coffers than if the property in question was paying regular taxes. Why don't we talk about that??

Bodhi, you know I am a fan, and it pains me to say this, but Yvonne's point is very valid. Yes, abatements add to the city's coffers, but at the expense of the schools. It works as long as the state never realizes they're overfunding the district and the state aid continues unchanged, or increases.

Right before our very eyes, we're seeing the house of cards situation unfold. The state now recognizes it sends way too much money to Jersey (those paying property taxes post reval will have one of the lowest property tax rates in the state), and are pulling the funding. If you had less abatements, the city would be better prepared to absorb the tax increase that will result from the state pulling the aid. Instead, they're going to levy a corporate tax. And when that option runs out, guess who pays? The rateable portion of the city. Fulop will stop at nothing to keep from raising municipal taxes to fund the schools, because he has a streak to protect, but that day WILL come. And it's going to be ugly.

Abataments definitely have their place. I'm not anti abatement. But, abatements in JC help any sitting mayor fund pet projects that win votes. When abused, you create a massive fiscal issue, just like the 30 year delayed tax reval.

My information comes from the county they list what is a ratable and what is not a ratable, excluding churches, schools or public property. Only ratables can stabilize the tax rate. It is the reason Hoboken did not have our problems because they do not give out tax abatements like we do. The higher the ratable base the lower the tax rate for everyone. Our ratable base goes up and down depending on which tax abatement has expired and whether new ones are added. But between 1/4 to 1/3 properties are not classified as ratables. Before the reval, that figure was $2.4 to $2.8 billion.